MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603392682 · doi:10.7202/1073088ar

Acquiring Practical Knowledge: A Justification for Physical Education

2020· article· en· W2603392682 on OpenAlex
Sheryle Bergmann Drewe

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenuePaideusis · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPhysical Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical educationPsychologyComputer scienceMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During this time of cost-cutting and the back-to-basics movement, physi-. cat educators must provide persuasive arguments for the inclusion of physical education in the school curriculum. Physical education is typically justified as a means for students to achieve fitness and healthy lifestyles. I will argue that this instrumental justification is a weak form of argument for there are other means of becoming healthy and fit. For example, someone who walks or runs on a regular basis can achieve a reasonable fitness level and walking and running are basic motor skills which most people can achieve outside a school curriculum. Thus, a more persuasive argument for the inclusion of physical education in an educational curriculum is required. I will argue that a justification intrinsic to the notion of education which justifies physical education based on the development of practical knowledge provides a strong argument for its inclusion.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.340
GPT teacher head0.607
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it